loose views of the Hellenists on `inspiration,' and the absence of that close watchfulness
exercised over the text in Palestine, led to additions and alterations, and ultimately even to the
admission of the Apocrypha into the Greek Bible. Unlike the Hebrew arrangement of the text
into the Law, the Prophets,31 and the (sacred) Writings, or Hagiographa, the LXX. arrange
them into historical, prophetical, and poetic books, and count twenty-two, after the Hebrew
alphabet, instead of twenty-four, as the Hebrews. But perhaps both these may have been later
arrangements, since Philo evidently knew the Jewish order of the books.32 What text the
translators may have used we can only conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable instances
from our own, though the more important deviations are comparatively few.33 In the great
majority of the lesser variations our Hebrew must be regarded as the correct text.34
30. Comp. here, besides the passages quoted in the previous note, Baba B. 13 b and 14 b; for the
cessation of revelation in the Maccabean period, 1 Macc. iv. 46; ix. 27; xiv. 41; and, in general, for the
Jewish view on the subject at the time of Christ, Jos. Ag. Ap. i. 8.
31. Anterior: Josh., Judg., 1 and 2 Sam. 1 and 2 Kings. Posterior: Major: Is., Jer., and Ezek.; and the
Minor Prophets.
32. De Vita Contempl. § 3.
33. They occur chiefly in 1 Kings, the books of Esther, Job, Proverbs, Jeremiah, and Daniel. In the
Pentateuch we find them only in four passages in the Book of Exodus.
34. There is also a curious correspondence between the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch and that of
the LXX., which in no less than about 2,000 passages agree as against our Hebrew, although in other
instances the Greek text either agrees with the Hebrew against the Samaritan, or else is independent of
both. On the connection between Samaritan literature and Hellenism there are some very interesting
notices in Freudenthal, Hell. Stud. pp. 82-103, 130-136, 186, &c.
Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making allowance for errors of translation,
ignorance, and haste, we note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek version. It
bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt in its use of Egyptian words and references, and
equally evident traces of its Jewish composition. By the side of slavish and false literalism there
is great liberty, if not licence, in handling the original; gross mistakes occur along with happy
renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid of some able scholars. Distinct Jewish
elements are undeniably there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish tradition,
although they are much fewer than some critics have supposed.35 This we can easily understand,
since only those traditions would find a place which at that early time were not only received,
but in general circulation. The distinctively Grecian elements, however, are at present of chief
interest to us. They consist of allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of Greek
philosophical ideas. However few,36 even one well-authenticated instance would lead us to
suspect others, and in general give to the version the character of Jewish Hellenising. In the
same class we reckon what constitutes the prominent characteristic of the LXX. version, which,
for want of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and apologetic. Difficulties - or
what seemed such - are removed by the most bold methods, and by free handling of the text; it
need scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily. More especially a strenuous effort is made to
banish all anthropomorphisms, as inconsistent with their ideas of the Deity. The superficial